Skip to main content

About your Search

20121201
20121231
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)
in the best position because you are involved through the planning process or the dbi process that came to dpw because of this problem, but it seems like an odd situation. >> you are quite correct, supervisor wiener. it is a very odd situation because the inform we were provided initially from a 2010 survey showed the historic property line. okay, and what happened is again back in 2000 a portion of that was transferred, acquired and transferred to the city as right of way and that was not identified in the map. so it appears to be some form of error that happened at that stage that really no one caught on the development team. >> thank you. >> thank you. so there is no one from planing that's here and let's open this up for public comment if there are no other questions. supervisor wiener. >> yeah, i mean i'd be a bit uncomfortable acting on this without getting more information from planning and dbi, but i'm curious to hear public comments. >> and i'll just say up front as well that it's a confusing case, especially that we don't have planning here to explain more and i realize that even
inclined to request that dpw and planning come back, that we reject this resolution and that they come back with a street vacation rather than a major encroachment. i think that might be the best alternative course of action which you have outlined today here at the podium. so, mr. chair, i don't know if there's any more -- looks like supervisor wiener wants --. >> if we were, if the board was to reject the major encroachment are they able, i assume they could, if they wanted to, try to apply again in the future? >> yes, the applicant can reapply at some point in the future but normally on these rejections i believe they cannot reapply for one year. it still creates this problem where the building i believe was never final. they have a temporary certificate of occupancy that they are currently sitting on. i don't know right now. again, i leave that to the building department. from my understanding, based upon what the public have stated, that there are actually people residing in this building. >> and any negotiations to purchase the right of way that's been encroached on, that would
discussions with the department, specifically the department of dpw, it would be, they would agree to us rejecting this and sending it back and asking to come back with a street vacation rather than a major encroachment. so that's the course of action i would like to propose that we take today. >> so that sounds to me like it's a motion to reject this resolution. >> yes. >> amend the resolution as a rejection. >> amend the resolution as a rejection. >> mr. gibner indicated that the resolution before us to --. >> either up or down. >> is to approve the encroachment. i think it would require a motion to amend the resolution to reject and then to forward that resolution to the board. >> correct. >> so there's a motion -- there is an amendment to the table to reject. are there any objections? so -- and then on the motion itself as amended to reject, are there any objections? >> that would be to forward the amended resolution to the board with a recommendation to adopt it. >> yes. so without objection. thank you. thank you, mr. gibner. miss miller, could you please call item no. 2? >> it
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)